1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Intraoperative assessment and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens to guide nerve‐sparing surgery in prostate cancer patients (NeuroSAFE)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is frequently complicated by urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Nerve‐sparing surgery reduces the risk of postoperative complications and can be optimised by the use of intraoperative frozen sections of the adjacent neurovascular structure (NeuroSAFE). The aims of this study were to evaluate the pathological outcomes of the NeuroSAFE technique and to develop a comprehensive algorithm for intraoperative clinical decision‐making.

          Methods and results

          Between September 2018 and May 2019, 491 NeuroSAFE procedures were performed in 258 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy; 74 of 491 (15.1%) NeuroSAFE specimens had positive surgical margins. As compared with the corresponding paraffin sections, NeuroSAFE had a positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 85.1% and 95.4%, respectively. In 72.2% of secondary neurovascular bundle resections prompted by a NeuroSAFE positive surgical margin, no tumour was present. These cases more often had a positive surgical margin of ≤1 mm (48.7% versus 20.0%; P = 0.001) and only one positive slide (69.2% versus 33.3%; P = 0.008). None of the nine patients with Gleason pattern 3 at the surgical margin, a positive surgical margin length of ≤1 mm and one positive slide had tumour in the secondary resection.

          Conclusions

          This study provides a systematic reporting template for pathological intraoperative NeuroSAFE evaluation, supporting intraoperative clinical decision‐making and comparison between prostate cancer operation centres.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Erectile function recovery rate after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis.

          Erectile function recovery (EFR) rates after radical prostatectomy (RP) vary greatly based on a number of factors, such as erectile dysfunction (ED) definition, data acquisition means, time-point postsurgery, and population studied. To conduct a meta-analysis of carefully selected reports from the available literature to define the EFR rate post-RP. EFR rate after RP. An EMBASE and MEDLINE search was conducted for the time range 1985-2007. Articles were assessed blindly by strict inclusion criteria: report of EFR data post-RP, study population >or=50 patients, >or=1 year follow-up, nerve-sparing status declared, no presurgery ED, and no other prostate cancer therapy. Meta-analysis was conducted to determine the EFR rate and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous subgroups. A total of 212 relevant studies were identified; only 22 (10%) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (9,965 RPs, EFR data: 4,983 subjects). Mean study population size: 226.5, standard deviation = 384.1 (range: 17-1,834). Overall EFR rate was 58%. Single center series publications (k = 19) reported a higher EFR rate compared with multicenter series publications (k = 3): 60% vs. 33%, RR = 1.82, P = 0.001. Studies reporting >or=18-month follow-up (k = 10) reported higher EFR rate vs. studies with or=60 years, 77% vs. 61%, RR = 1.26, P = 0.001. These data indicate that most of the published literature does not meet strict criteria for reporting post-RP EFR. Single and multiple surgeon series have comparable EFR rates, but single center studies have a higher EFR. Younger men have higher EFR and no significant difference in EFR between ORP and LRP is evident.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Degree of preservation of the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy and urinary continence 1 year after surgery.

            Many elderly or impotent men with prostate cancer may not receive a bundle-preserving radical prostatectomy as a result of uncertainty regarding the effect on urinary incontinence.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A Feasible and Time-efficient Adaptation of NeuroSAFE for da Vinci Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                slotm@maasstadziekenhuis.nl
                Journal
                Histopathology
                Histopathology
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2559
                HIS
                Histopathology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0309-0167
                1365-2559
                03 September 2020
                October 2020
                : 77
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/his.v77.4 )
                : 539-547
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Anser Prostate Clinic Maasstad Hospital Rotterdam The Netherlands
                [ 2 ] Department of Pathology Maasstad Hospital Rotterdam The Netherlands
                [ 3 ] Department of Urology Maasstad Hospital Rotterdam The Netherlands
                [ 4 ] Department of Urology Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam The Netherlands
                [ 5 ] Department of Urology Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland Rotterdam The Netherlands
                [ 6 ] Department of Pathology Erasmus MC University Medical Centre Rotterdam The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Address for correspondence: M A van der Slot, Anser Prostate Clinic, Maasstad Hospital, Maasstadweg 21, 3079 DZ Rotterdam, The Netherlands. e‐mail: slotm@ 123456maasstadziekenhuis.nl

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7304-7542
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8996-3134
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2176-9102
                Article
                HIS14184
                10.1111/his.14184
                7540505
                32557744
                c62d12f7-df18-4433-820a-aa67fb3e8ef7
                © 2020 The Authors. Histopathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 31 March 2020
                : 11 June 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 9, Words: 5245
                Funding
                Funded by: BeterKeten
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                October 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.2 mode:remove_FC converted:07.10.2020

                Pathology
                frozen section,neurosafe,prostate cancer,prostatectomy,surgical margin
                Pathology
                frozen section, neurosafe, prostate cancer, prostatectomy, surgical margin

                Comments

                Comment on this article